Posted on 12/10/2020 2:36:32 AM PST by RandFan
Constitutional Lawyer Robert Barnes joins The Alex Jones Show to break down the killshot Trump needs to take to defeat voter fraud.
(Excerpt) Read more at banned.video ...
49 Mins.
Do you have a synopsis?
I’m listening to it now..
He is going through the remedies for the President and the Texas case. He thinks this is the best shot as “rogue states” have violated the constitutional compact.
Would you mind identifying where in the 49 minute video this “killshot” is specificed.
It's obvious by now that no one (including the courts) don't want to hear all the evidence regarding fraud and treason.
This case is only about election laws not being followed.
Roberts ruled for PA to break it's own election laws before the election, and he did so with a smile on his face.
Barnes is all too comfy and happy with the “Trump will come back and win in four years” scenario IMO.
I don’t write the titles and can’t change it or the Mods get upset.
He is just discussing the legal cases and Texas in particular.
He is very good at explaining things.
Moreover, if, as expected, the Left mounts an attack on the independence of the Court and the federal judiciary, a decision to do nothing in this election controversy will deflate conservative support for them. What good are the Supreme Court and other federal courts if they refuse to review and remedy a stolen Presidential election? If so, the best strategy for conservatives may be to let the Left burn the federal judiciary down but then aim for an opportunity to rebuild on our own terms.
I was under the impression that the Kelley case in PA about allowing mail-in ballots contrary to the PA State Constitution VII sec 14 was also about election laws not being followed.
I should have said absentee ballots that do not meet the PA Constitutional requirements.
Since the election had not yet taken place, the justification for letting it go ahead was that no one had yet been "injured."
Of course, now that the election is over, all we're going to hear about is millions of Biden voters that will be disenfranchised if their mail-in ballots are thrown out(never mind that it's impossible to disenfranchise illegal voters -- in fact the only ones disenfranchised will be the legal voters if the fraud is allowed to stand).
As I recall, the decision was a tie. Roberts voted with the Progressive Left. 4-4.
dirty “judge” Roberts observes his Oath ....... to Malta.
every time.
Dread Justice Roberts is a slime ball. This is why Trump recently suggested for Roberts to stay in Malta and not come back.
Trump knows that Roberts was in on the steal. He should be dealt with accordingly. spit.
Roberts joined the left in their reasoning that the election could go ahead because no one could, in theory, be "injured" until after the election.
The 4-4 tie meant that the lower court decision stood so the election went ahead with the cheat-by-mail ballots.
Then Amy Comey Barrett joined the Court.
Now there will be nine justices to vote.
The Texas lawsuit argues that PA, GA, MI, and WI violated the Constitution by:
(A) changing election laws, thereby treating voters unequally, and, (B) allowed serious voting irregularities.
Lower court judges would not hear voter fraud cases, deciding that, if they were to consider
Trump’s claims, they ran the risk of “disenfranchising” Biden voters........a singularly dishonest argument.
Disenfranchisement occurs when people are deprived of the right to vote.
No one was “deprived” of the vote here. So-called Biden “voters” all voted.
No one can disenfranchise a “voter” who was illegal from the get-go, particularly when that “Biden voter” is
<><> dead,
<><> an amorphous computer algorithm,
<><> or a paper form mfg in a Chinese print shop submitted as a voter.
Yes.
In the same way that that case against Al Capone was only about tax evasion and the case against Alger Hiss was only about perjury.
The underlying issue dwarfs the formal charges, which are limited to what can be proved in court.
So, this time the key source of info to filter through is Robert Barns. When he speaks, I want to listen unfiltered. The venue was surprisingly Info Wars, which really grates on me. However, in this instance I think Alex Jones’ bombastic style drew out insightful opinions from Barns that I don’t know would have been put out in other venues including Barns’ own.
The synopsis is that Barns spoke to two areas. First, He spoke to the Texas filing at the Supreme Court. Second, he spoke to the political revolution that is simmering and maybe getting ready to boil over. That’s it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.